Search

The Black Vault Message Forums

Battle Forum

This is the Battle Forum. It was setup for those threads and conversations that get out of hand - and turn into attacks, name calling and childish behavior. Users head here to hash out their differences. Please be warned before entering...

Forum rules
This is the BATTLE FORUM. A WARNING UP FRONT: ANYTHING GOES HERE!

Expect language and attacks from other members here. This place was setup for those threads that turned to personal attacks, name calling, and other immature behavior.

This is an unmoderated board, except by the site Administrator. There are NO THREATS OF VIOLENCE, BLATANT RACISM, or other ILLEGAL ACTIVITY! Other than that, this is a battle field - so enter and read at your own risk.

“Living backwards!” Alice repeated in greatastonishment. “I never heard of such a thing!”“—but there’s one great advantage in it, that one’smemory works both ways.”— Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

I can't believe I'm in this section. If I have an arguement against Gay marriage John, you know it isn't becasue I think its any of the reasons SR just gave, which is purly a bigoted postion. I have positively no problem with gay couples having civil unions or monogamous lifelong relationships, that does not include any other indivuals.

Today the trials began in California on the Constitutional issues regarding the Marriage requirements of a Man and Woman. Lets see how that all ends up.

Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal status of all marriages in the state.

The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that "marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman." But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:

"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively "eliminates marriage in Texas," including common-law marriages.

She calls it a "massive mistake" and blames the current attorney general, Republican Greg Abbott, for allowing the language to become part of the Texas Constitution. Radnofsky called on Abbott to acknowledge the wording as an error and consider an apology. She also said that another constitutional amendment may be necessary to reverse the problem.

"You do not have to have a fancy law degree to read this and understand what it plainly says," said Radnofsky, who will be at Texas Christian University today as part of a five-city tour to kick off her campaign.

'Entirely constitutional’

Abbott spokesman Jerry Strickland said the attorney general stands behind the 4-year-old amendment.

"The Texas Constitution and the marriage statute are entirely constitutional," Strickland said without commenting further on Radnofsky’s statements. "We will continue to defend both in court."

A conservative leader whose organization helped draft the amendment dismissed Radnofsky’s position, saying it was similar to scare tactics opponents unsuccessfully used against the proposal in 2005.

"It’s a silly argument," said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Liberty Legal Institute in Plano. Any lawsuit based on the wording of Subsection B, he said, would have "about one chance in a trillion" of being successful.

Shackelford said the clause was designed to be broad enough to prevent the creation of domestic partnerships, civil unions or other arrangements that would give same-sex couples many of the benefits of marriage.

Radnofsky acknowledged that the clause is not likely to result in an overnight dismantling of marriages in Texas. But she said the wording opens the door to legal claims involving spousal rights, insurance claims, inheritance and a host other marriage-related issues.

"This breeds unneeded arguments, lawsuits and expense which could have been avoided by good lawyering," Radnofsky said. "Yes, I believe the clear language of B bans all marriages, and this is indeed a huge mistake."

In October, Dallas District Judge Tena Callahan ruled that the same-sex-marriage ban is unconstitutional because it stands in the way of gay divorce. Abbott is appealing the ruling, which came in a divorce petition involving two men who were married in Massachusetts in 2006.

Massive error?

Radnofsky, the Democratic nominee in the Senate race against Kay Bailey Hutchison in 2006, said she voted against the amendment but didn’t realize the legal implications until she began poring over the Texas Constitution to prepare for the attorney general’s race. She said she holds Abbott and his office responsible for not catching an "error of massive proportions."

"Whoever vetted the language in B must have been asleep at the wheel," she said.

Abbott, a former state Supreme Court justice who was elected attorney general in 2002, has not indicated whether he will seek re-election and is known to be interested in running for lieutenant governor. Ted Cruz, who served as solicitor general under Abbott, is running for attorney general in the Republican primary.

Radnofsky, who has not yet drawn a Democratic opponent, is scheduled to appear at the Tarrant County Young Democrats Gubernatorial Forum at 6:30 tonight at TCU.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -Thomas JeffersonCopies of all my posts are now kept on file.

Again I hate being in this forum, but here I am again. Wing you live in California so you know what the issue is, and the issue is incorrectly worded first off. The measure was not a ban on gay marriage, it was played up and named that, by a liberal press. The measure was passing a California Constitutional ammentment the defined Marriage as between a Man and Woman. It was not a measure that said, we ban gays from anything.

Now the court must rule on something that has nothing to do with the marriage issue, and the real issue is the Constitutional right for this state to Ammend its Constitution with a simple majoriety vote or over 50%. California's Constitution is probably one of the most complex Constitutions of any State, and is a huge document. In Comparison the US Constitution is pretty short. This issue before the court, has to determain what Constitutional right must prevail, the right and freedom of a relatively small group to claim discrimination, or the rights of all Californians to be able to Ammend their Constitution with 50% majoriety. If they proove some Constitutional right, which they have president cases that ruled they were not discriminated against, which right prevails? Do they rule for the rights of a few, or override the right of all by striking down a over 50% voted Ammendment, which is a guarenteed right in this State.

California citizens have it written into the Constitution, they may Ammend it by 50% vote of the people. Federal Standard to Ammend the Constitution is much higher, so by Federal Standards the issue would have lost, even worse. As it was, it was 51-49 passing vote, Federal standard would be 66 2/3rd vote required in Congress I think. I could be wrong on that percentage. There are existing California court presidents, that supported the California Supreme court decisions that Gays were in fact not being discriminated against, and stated the reasons why in the ruling. My guess is that this trial will rule that they will not overturn the voters right to ammend, and that prior case presidents rule out discrimination will be upheld. The last vote that led to all the gay marriges was only a 4-3 court decision, so at best the issue is divided by about 50-50 between voters and supreme court decisions. Its a very close issue.

Contact Us.

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.